(Springfield Terminal Railway Company

"Claim of the Employees':

1. That the Springfield Terminal Railway Company violated the

terms of our current Agreement, in particular Rules 2.1(a) and

(i), when they did not call in Carman Richard Sibley to work on

January 19, 2008.

2. That, accordingly, the Springfield Terminal Railway Company

be required to compensate Carman Richard Sibley in the

amount of eight (8) hours at the overtime rate of pay. This is the

amount he would have earned had the Carrier not violated the

Agreement."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

It is the Organization's position that the Carrier required Assistant Superintendent J. Rae to drive to Mohawk Yard, East Deerfield, Maine, to inspect a pipe train. The Assistant Superintendent left at 11:00 P.M. on January 19 and returned at 7:00 A.M., on January 20. According to the Organization, the inspection performed by Rae was covered work protected by Rule 2.1 (a) and (i). Because he performed that work, it requested that the claim be sustained as presented.

It is the position of the Carrier that it did not violate the Agreement. It argued that the Assistant Superintendent did not perform any mechanical inspection on the train or its lading and, therefore, there was no contractual violation. It asserts that the location in question is used as an interchange point between CSXT and itself and the pipe train in question was under the possession and control of CSXT during the time Rae was at that location. It further argued that any work performed on the train at that point was done by CSXT employees and the only thing the Assistant Superintendent did was oversee the movement of trains from a foreign Carrier, which was not a violation of the Agreement.

The Board reviewed the record and discovered that the parties are in agreement that the inspection of trains, such as the pipe train in this instance, is covered work belonging to BRC-represented employees. The disagreement in this case concerns whether an actual inspection was performed. The Organization asserts that it was and the Carrier asserts that it was not. The burden of proof in this case was with the Organization, which offered no proof that the Assistant Superintendent performed a mechanical inspection. Absent any proof, the Board finds and holds that there was no violation of the Agreement and the claim must be denied.

AWARD